The Second Amendment ("right to bear arms")

[jerryskids 6,799]

I told you I'm not taking a side one way or another. But taking a section of a sentence (not even an entire sentence on its own) and ignoring the conditions that preceeds it is an abysmal joke. I wouldn't use the 2A to justify Gun Control either - it's be equally stupid. - Because it speaks of a Well Regulated Militia.

 

Honestly, I think the 2A should be dropped entirely and a new, more clear amendment passed. We are not a society protected by a Militia anymore. The context has changes as has the circumstance and the armament. I'd like to see the NRA get behind that rather than this endless bullshiit of trying to "Kreskin" our way around 200 year old language that is completely out of date and context. We dropped the 3/5 rule for blacks too. It's okay to update the constitution as necessary. It's not the focking ten commandments.

This is probably the best post of the thread. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of gun ownership (btw I don't own one, but I think people should be allowed), and I'm also in favor of controls which help keep them out of the hands of the bad guys. But to nit on werds from centuries ago is dumb.

[wiffleball 4,790]

well said, brother. when guns are gone so will the violence

 

Never said that.

[supermike80 1,913]

I think it has to do with allowing bears to carry guns which is dumb because the trigger is too hard for their large paws.

 

Sometimes simple comedy can be the best.

[supermike80 1,913]

I think it does provide for individuals to bear arms, but the law definitely needs to be changed.

[Quickolas1 80]

Yep. Ban guns. Take them away from law abiding citizens. And then obey your government. Are you really that blind? Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can not and will not hurt this country. Is it that hard to see that with each right taken from us that we lose the liberties granted to us by the constitution? Is it so hard to believe that defenseless community stands no chance against any enemy? Is it so hard to believe that an enemy could be our very own government?

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA&feature=related

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I think it does provide for individuals to bear arms, but the law definitely needs to be changed.

 

That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck trying to get that through.

[GettnHuge 2]

Is it that hard to see that with each right taken from us that we lose the liberties granted to us by the constitution? Is it so hard to believe that defenseless community stands no chance against any enemy? Is it so hard to believe that an enemy could be our very own government? Extreme situations cause people to do amazingly stupid things.

 

MCVEIGH: If it means that I was angered at what the government did at Waco and I enjoy guns as a hobby, I do gun shows and I follow the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. If that means I was involved in the bombing, then that means that about a billion other Americans were involved in the bombing as well. I don't think it is right to take someone's beliefs and convict them because of those beliefs.

 

How do you feel about our system of government?

 

MCVEIGH: I think the Constitution is the greatest document ever created by man. There are always going to be faults in an experiment, which is what it was. I believe there are faults, some of them serious, right now.

 

TIME: Such as?

 

MCVEIGH: I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We've gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that's where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

 

TIME: Who are your favorite authors of political philosophy?

 

MCVEIGH: Patrick Henry, John Locke, of course many of the Founding Fathers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams. I thought those men were, at the time they were extremely well-educated. They could talk us in circles these days, we wouldn't know what they were talking about. I really respected their observations and analyses of history past.

 

MCVEIGH: I believe there are many checks and balances built into our system of government. However, I think many of them have been circumvented and right now you have an arrogance of attitude, an omnipotent attitude. An example would be property seizure, asset seizure. If it's unjustified, what do you have to do to get the stuff back? You have to sue. They know that people don't have the money to sue the federal government, to go up against their unlimited resources. I think another aspect to that has to do with to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Their just powers. I believe we've lost track of what the just power of the federal government is and what it is not. There are too many things that are being given to a democracy that shouldn't be the subject of a vote, that are inalienable rights that are not to be decided by a central government.

[supermike80 1,913]

That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck trying to get that through.

Yes I know. And with the NRA behind not changing it, that would never happen.

Just my opinion.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

MCVEIGH: If it means that I was angered at what the government did at Waco and I enjoy guns as a hobby, I do gun shows and I follow the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. If that means I was involved in the bombing, then that means that about a billion other Americans were involved in the bombing as well. I don't think it is right to take someone's beliefs and convict them because of those beliefs.

 

How do you feel about our system of government?

 

MCVEIGH: I think the Constitution is the greatest document ever created by man. There are always going to be faults in an experiment, which is what it was. I believe there are faults, some of them serious, right now.

 

TIME: Such as?

 

MCVEIGH: I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We've gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that's where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

 

TIME: Who are your favorite authors of political philosophy?

 

MCVEIGH: Patrick Henry, John Locke, of course many of the Founding Fathers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams. I thought those men were, at the time they were extremely well-educated. They could talk us in circles these days, we wouldn't know what they were talking about. I really respected their observations and analyses of history past.

 

MCVEIGH: I believe there are many checks and balances built into our system of government. However, I think many of them have been circumvented and right now you have an arrogance of attitude, an omnipotent attitude. An example would be property seizure, asset seizure. If it's unjustified, what do you have to do to get the stuff back? You have to sue. They know that people don't have the money to sue the federal government, to go up against their unlimited resources. I think another aspect to that has to do with to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Their just powers. I believe we've lost track of what the just power of the federal government is and what it is not. There are too many things that are being given to a democracy that shouldn't be the subject of a vote, that are inalienable rights that are not to be decided by a central government.

You have to be the biggest doosh on this site. So let me get this straight, by your (moronic) reasoning, if you like the founding fathers, think the constitution is a good document by which to run a government, and believe that the government is not always looking out for the rights of their citizens....then you must be compared with a murdering scum?

 

Do you believe the government is always doing what is best for you? You stand behind George Bush? In everything he does? Clinton? The next president? Congress? If you disagree in any way with any of them, you sir must be just like McViegh. Seriously, your reasoning requires me to put 2/3 of my brain behind my back.

 

 

Getting Internet Acess $20

Joining a Fantasy Football league $50

Talking with Gettnhuge......pointless

[Snoopy1 0]

You have to be the biggest doosh on this site. So let me get this straight, by your (moronic) reasoning, if you like the founding fathers, think the constitution is a good document by which to run a government, and believe that the government is not always looking out for the rights of their citizens....then you must be compared with a murdering scum?

 

Do you believe the government is always doing what is best for you? You stand behind George Bush? In everything he does? Clinton? The next president? Congress? If you disagree in any way with any of them, you sir must be just like McViegh. Seriously, your reasoning requires me to put 2/3 of my brain behind my back.

Getting Internet Acess $20

Joining a Fantasy Football league $50

Talking with Gettnhuge......pointless

 

 

You realize that the douche is a big gun supporter---guess it's opposite day.

 

Actually this works better for him, since it doesn't require him to actually make a real argument supporting his opinion. BTW-even though he's thinks he's acting like an idiot, it's really not an act.

[Mephisto 15]

The concept that Americans should be able to keep and bear arms in the context of being able to form a militia is stupid.

 

Actually, the entire point of this amendment was for individual citizens to be able to defend themselves against hostile aggressors be they foreign or domestic... which would include your own government and standing armies.

 

Good grief.

[GettnHuge 2]

You realize that the douche is a big gun supporter---guess it's opposite day.

 

Actually this works better for him, since it doesn't require him to actually make a real argument supporting his opinion. BTW-even though he's thinks he's acting like an idiot, it's really not an act.

 

Heh, I'm an idiot who's frying up a boatload of fishies. the hook barely hit the water and they just bypass it

and jump into the boat.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Actually, the entire point of this amendment was for individual citizens to be able to defend themselves against hostile aggressors be they foreign or domestic... which would include your own government and standing armies.

 

Good grief.

 

No, it was drafted in the context of a "well regulated militia". Again, you can't cherry pick that to mean whatever you'd like it to mean. That's not how it works.

 

 

Good grief.

[Mephisto 15]

No, it was drafted in the context of a "well regulated militia". Again, you can't cherry pick that to mean whatever you'd like it to mean. That's not how it works.

Good grief.

 

I've buried more intelligent arguments on this topic than you could ever dream of providing countless times on this website. I won't waste my time doing it again.

[Snoopy1 0]

Heh, I'm an idiot who's frying up a boatload of fishies. the hook barely hit the water and they just bypass it

and jump into the boat.

 

 

Wow--congrats, you fooled people who don't know you. Wow, you really are a modern day Svengali....

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

So, if the 2nd Amendment reads:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

I have some questions:

- If they wanted to separate the sentence to mean one thing about a militia and one about the right to bear arms, then why are they in the same sentence?

- If they wanted only a "well regulated Militia" to have the arms, then why did they say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?

 

IMO, the 2nd Amendment does give the right to the people to keep and bear Arms. However, that does not mean that it cannot be regulated. Keep assault rifles out of the hands of the average citizen. Keep armor piercing ammo out of the hands of the average citizen. Do background checks on individuals applying to buy a gun. Do send people to jail if illegally possessing a firearm.

[Snoopy1 0]

I've buried more intelligent arguments on this topic than you could ever dream of providing countless times on this website. I won't waste my time doing it again.

 

 

You couldn't bury a bone with a shovel.

[Mephisto 15]

The preponderance of state constitutions, many of which updated long after "Revolutionary times" - make the argument quite simple... it's about individuals' rights.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

 

[After each provision, I indicate whether it now protects an individual right aimed at least partly as self-defense, which I abbreviate as "self-defense right"; the shorthand "self-defense right explicitly protected" refers to provisions that specifically say "in defense of himself" or some such. I generally cite only one case, simply for the sake of being terse, unless there's some uncertainty in the caselaw.]

 

 

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

 

[individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]

 

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).

1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

 

[self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]

 

California: No provision.

 

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

( There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

© The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection ( of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection ( shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (-(d) added in 1990).

1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.

1865: Clause omitted.

1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.

1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.

1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.

 

[self-defense right protected, Alexander v. State, 450 So.2d 1212 (Fla. App. 1984).]

 

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).

1865: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Art. I, § 4.

1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.

 

[self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]

 

Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).

 

[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected.]

 

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).

1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.

 

[self-defense right protected, In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902).]

 

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).

 

[self-defense right protected, Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, 273 (Ill. 1984).]

 

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).

1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

 

[self-defense right protected, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990).]

 

Iowa: No provision.

 

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

 

[interpreted as collective right only, City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975). But see City of Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Kan. 1979) (striking down a gun control law, challenged by an individual citizen, on the grounds that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” and thus implicitly concluding that the right to bear arms did indeed belong to individual citizens).]

 

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).

1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.

1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

 

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).

1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Chaisson, 457 So.2d 1257, 1259 (La. App. 1984).]

 

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).

1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816 (Me. 1990).]

 

Maryland: No provision.

 

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

 

[interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]

 

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).

1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.

1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Minnesota: No provision.

 

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).

1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.

1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.

1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.

1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

New Jersey: No provision.

 

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).

1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

New York: No provision.

 

North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).

1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.

1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.

1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921).]

 

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).

1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

 

[self-defense right protected, Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163, 169 (Ohio 1993).]

 

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Hirsch, 114 P.3d 1104, 1110 (Ore. 2005).]

 

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

 

[self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]

 

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).

 

[self-defense right protected, Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1043 (R.I. 2004).]

 

South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).

1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.

 

[Right treated as an individual right, apparently aimed at least partly at self-defense, State v. Johnson, 16 S.C. 187 (1881);

 

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

 

[self-defense right protected, Conaty v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 102, 104 (S.D. 1988).]

 

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).

1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.

1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Foutch, 34 S.W. 1, 1 (Tenn. 1896).]

 

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).

1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.

1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.

1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).

1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903).]

 

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

 

[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected. Compare 1993 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 13 (construing the right as collective) with 2006 WL 304006 (Va. Op. Atty. Gen.) (construing the right as individual).]

 

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

 

[self-defense right explicitly protected.]

 

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. Fisher, 714 N.W.2d 495 (Wisc. 2006).]

 

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

 

[self-defense right protected, State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986).]

[phillybear 366]

It's extremely important to protect the right to own a microwave. If I want to melt a baby, then dammit, I should be able to.

[Isotopes 1]

I am not really for it but what are we going to do? Make every Italian woman shave their arms?

[GettnHuge 2]

Wow--congrats, you fooled people who don't know you. Wow, you really are a modern day Svengali....

 

1st day here?

[BudBro 182]

Are you in a militia? no? No guns for you!

 

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

the SC is wise and should ban all firearms. the founding fathers never imagined a bloodbath like we have today. It's time to change.

 

a militia is made up of citizens. so, if we take the guns from the citizens, then want to assemble a militia to keep the govt in check, where would the citizens get the weapons to make up the militia?

 

there can be no militia if the citizens don't have weapons. therefore and thusly, the constitution says what it says...that we have the right to own weapons. let's just read it for what it says and not what some looney libs want it to say.

[GettnHuge 2]

a militia is made up of citizens. so, if we take the guns from the citizens, then want to assemble a militia to keep the govt in check, where would the citizens get the weapons to make up the militia?

 

there can be no militia if the citizens don't have weapons. therefore and thusly, the constitution says what it says...that we have the right to own weapons. let's just read it for what it says and not what some looney libs want it to say.

 

your interpretation is crap, you have no idea what you're talking about. The best weapon we have is the right to

vote. To think otherwise shows your gullibility. Ban guns, save america!

[Me_2006 14]

forget? who forgot that they did that? to compare nazi germany to 2008 united states is what's ridiculous. I suppose without

guns, Hitlery will then declare herself president for life, invade canada, messico, central america, kill the jews...this is what

you're talking about isn't it? Ban guns and we'll be just like nazi germany?

Call me a history nerd, but I've always heard like 1932-1945/6 as Nazi Germany. Not the 20's.

[Nomad99 744]

Ban guns, save america!

 

 

Maybe you should read your history on how "THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" came to be

 

Less of course you want to keep "GettnDumb"

[Rattlesnake 0]

The Framers also thought that they had a fundamental reason for coming up with how to count the Slave vote. Just because they thought it was important, doesn't mean it's still applicable today.

 

The closest thing we have to "a well organized militia" is the The National Guard. In fact, it was THE Militia Act of 1903 that organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.

 

Now, I don't know a whole lot about how them fellers work, but part of them being "well organized" is that they don't get to take their guns and tanks and helicopters home with them when the day's over.

 

So yeah, all the folks who want to jump on the 2A to support gun ownership: If you want to have to lock up your gun in the armory and only use it when you're wearing your little uniform, so be it.

 

That's why I think we'er better off just scrapping the whole stupid thing. The militia system that the Framers had in mind has radically changed. The concept that Americans should be able to keep and bear arms in the context of being able to form a militia is stupid. People should have a right to hunt, to target shoot, to watch their toddler shoot his sister in the haid because you were too stupid to get a gun lock. - All basic, fundamental rights of gun ownership that have absolutely nothing to do with militias.

 

Again, it's okay to say it's anachornistic verbiage and re-do it to fit a modern reality. That's why they're called "amendments" and not "commandments".

 

As I stated last week, a tall majority of the population has no idea what the original intention of the 2nd amendment was and just exactly how outdated it is, in relation to the original intention, today. Or, if they understand that, then they must repress their understanding because it doesn't fit their own emotional needs.

 

Damn, this country is just chocked full of insecure and/or stupid people. It's kind of sad, really.

[Rattlesnake 0]

Early 1920's Germany had gun control. It isn't the answer.

 

Wow. This may be the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted here.

 

That's REALLY saying something, too.

[BudBro 182]

your interpretation is crap, you have no idea what you're talking about. The best weapon we have is the right to

vote. To think otherwise shows your gullibility. Ban guns, save america!

 

i'll be gullible then and carry a weapon. you keep on brandishing your vote weapon...

[Me_2006 14]

Anyone found the Gettnhuge hunting thread yet or do I have to do it?

 

 

 

ETA:

 

 

Link Granted he says crossbow. but those are "arms" too, right?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Wow. This may be the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted here.

 

That's REALLY saying something, too.

how so? Or are you just here for your looks?

[GettnHuge 2]

Anyone found the Gettnhuge hunting thread yet or do I have to do it?

ETA:

Link Granted he says crossbow. but those are "arms" too, right?

 

that must be an alias. hunting is wrong

[IGotWorms 4,058]

The issue isn't hunting. I think people should be able to do that, but the Second Amendment clearly does not cover that. The Second Amendment issue is whether you:

 

1) have an individual right to keep and bear arms so as to be able to join up at a moment's notice with your brothers against tyranny

 

or

 

2) only have a right to keep and bear arms in relation to a state controlled militia.

 

Personally, I think that both viewpoints have support from the Amendment's text. I just believe that you can't really form an effective "militia" without the individual person being able to bring their own weapons to the group. THAT, in my opinion, is why the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right to gun ownership. Obviously, this is not without restrictions. The weapon must have some kind of reasonable relation to militia activities--a rocket launcher (arguably) or nuclear weapon (certainly) does not have anything to do with militias.

[Mephisto 15]

As I stated last week, a tall majority of the population has no idea what the original intention of the 2nd amendment was and just exactly how outdated it is, in relation to the original intention, today. Or, if they understand that, then they must repress their understanding because it doesn't fit their own emotional needs.

 

I would suggest that you (and others) go up to my post listing each state's individual constitutions, the language, and most importantly - the DATES of implementation/updates on many of them.

 

Outdated? No consideration for the advancement of technology over the course of the last 200+ years? Methinks many here are mistaken.

[Birdseed 1]

Mephisto won this thread.

[Mephisto 15]

Mephisto won this thread.

 

I'm sitting here awaiting wiffleball and his ilk and the "cherry picking" comments and other stupid sayings like "back when we had muskets... everyone should only have muskets" and all the other inane drivel like... "so you think you should have a nuclear weapon?!?!"

 

Focking children. All of them.

 

Of the few states that have no constitutional provisions... (like New York and California)... check a look at their gun crime rates, easily associated with their severe anti-gun policies (written by lawmakers with armed security staffs).

 

Personally, I think that this is a SLAM DUNK ruling forthcoming from the Supreme Court in favor of individual, inalienable gun rights. Hopefully, in the period that follows, people in DC (and other states/cities with such bans or otherwise ridiculously strict policies) will be able to protect themselves more meaningfully from the evil among them.

[Rattlesnake 0]

I would suggest that you (and others) go up to my post listing each state's individual constitutions, the language, and most importantly - the DATES of implementation/updates on many of them.

 

Outdated? No consideration for the advancement of technology over the course of the last 200+ years? Methinks many here are mistaken.

 

You know me well enough to know that I'm just having fun with this. Obviously, I believe what I'm saying, but this isn't a huge issue to me. It's way, way, way down on my priority list, where it should be.

 

Honestly, what's amazing to me is that this is such a huge issue for so many people. Some single-issue voters choose THIS as their issue. Some people are more worried about this than they are education, the economy, foreign policy.......it's just unbelievable to me. I am simply entertained by the fact that so many people take the gun discussion so personally. I understand why they do, believe me, it makes perfect sense......but it's still just an amazing thing to me.

[phillybear 366]

You know me well enough to know that I'm just having fun with this. Obviously, I believe what I'm saying, but this isn't a huge issue to me. It's way, way, way down on my priority list, where it should be.

 

Honestly, what's amazing to me is that this is such a huge issue for so many people. Some single-issue voters choose THIS as their issue. Some people are more worried about this than they are education, the economy, foreign policy.......it's just unbelievable to me. I am simply entertained by the fact that so many people take the gun discussion so personally. I understand why they do, believe me, it makes perfect sense......but it's still just an amazing thing to me.

 

I think it's simply people's lack of faith in the two party political process. They know that government sucks, and they can't afford to depend on government to protect them. Hence, the need to feel like you can protect yourself.

[Rattlesnake 0]

Oh, I think it has more to do with machismo and insecurity than anything.........but I suppose that could be it for some people.

[GettnHuge 2]

Oh, I think it has more to do with machismo and insecurity than anything.........but I suppose that could be it for some people.

 

 

small balls

[IGotWorms 4,058]

To me, gun ownership is really a symbolic right more than anything. Of course the necessity and potential effectiveness of a citizen militia are questionable in modern times, but gun ownership is still an important right to have. Forced disarmanent of the citizenry is a step towards totalitarianism.